State v. Miskell/Sinibaldi, 351 Or 680 (2012)

Holding:   Statutory phrase “circumstances * * * [that] are of such exigency that it would be unreasonable to obtain a court order,” given the legislative history, sought to convey the same requirements as the phrase “exigent circumstances.”

1)   Fact that the legislature allowed police greater leeway when investigating certain crimes does not logically foreclose the possibility that the lawmakers intended the more-stringent standard to apply to other types of crime. at p. 692.

2)  Even though the case could “most likely” be resolved by examining the “text and context” alone, the Court may consider the statute’s legislative history, when such “history is useful to the court’s analysis.” at p. 692-93.

3)   The legislative history dating back decades shows that the lawmakers “understood the phrases to be interchangeable,” even though the two phrases are semantically different. at p. 693.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!